A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.

Monday, 28 February 2011

SPUC has been responding to the draft guidelines on abortion by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), which I blogged on 14 February.

Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, told the media earlier today:

"The RCOG draft guidelines play down the physical and psychological side-effects of abortion, discounting the real and serious damage that abortion can cause. Ireland, where abortion is banned, scores the world's best record in maternal health year after year. Chile, where abortion is also banned, has the lowest maternal mortality rate in Latin America.

"The guidelines are very badly drafted, as they have totally confused Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and totally misunderstood the legal positions in both jurisdictions. This is grossly inept, as such misinformation could be extremely dangerous if followed.

Other black marks in the draft guidelines include:

the false claim that the right of conscientious objection to abortion only applies to doctors (line 1044) or only to doctors and nurses (line 1084) - when it applies to any person called upon to participate in an abortion

the contemplation of enforced abortions on some 16-17 year-olds (1260 - 1262)

failing to require that women be informed of alternatives to abortion and how to obtain such help (1438)

the failure to suggest that doctors should be wary of situations where women seek abortions on unlawful grounds (e.g. for social sex selection), or where women seek abortion under duress (1494).

"The RCOG has long since been an extension of the pro-abortion lobby. Its draft guidelines reflect that institutional bias and should therefore be binned."

40 Days for Life is an international pro-life campaign which began in the US and which has now spread to the UK. You can read more about 40 Days for Life in my blog of 3 September. The next 40 Days for Life campaign in London begins on 9 March. Margaret Cuthill of SPUC's sister organisation ARCH (Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline) spoke at the campaign's pre-launch meeting on Wednesday evening in London (pictured). You can read more about the London campaign in a PowerPoint presentation and on its blog.

Saturday, 26 February 2011

An international committee of over 30 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has given Chile an award for the country's success in protecting both mothers and unborn children.

The International Protect Life Committee announced its award in a meeting with Chile's ambassador to the United Nations in New York yesterday (pictured). The award recognised that Chile has the lowest maternal mortality rate in Latin America, at the same time that its laws and policies promote the health of unborn children. Abortion is banned in Chile.

Daniel Ziedler, the committee's coordinator, said that Ambassador Octavio Errazuriz was extremely pleased at the award. The ambassador repeated Chile's committment to the protection of both mothers and unborn children.

SPUC, which has official NGO status at the UN, is represented on the committee. SPUC was represented at the meeting by Peter C. Smith.

Do read the letter from the committee to President Pinera of Chile notifying him of the award, and the press release from the committee announcing the award.

Thursday, 24 February 2011

you to take action to stop primary schools showing sexually explicit materials to children as young as seven years old

your involvement so that sex education is not made a compulsory school subject

your support to reverse government policies which promote contraceptives and abortion advice to secondary school pupils

to act now because anti-life sex education in our schools is priming young children for premature sexual activity, which leads to teenage pregnancies and abortions.

This sex education damages the health and welfare of our children and teenagers. And the lives of unborn children are put at risk. That's why this campaign is so important.

Last year SPUC fought against the proposal to make sex and relationships education (SRE) mandatory in all state schools in England from the age of 5 upwards. The proposal was defeated, but supporters of explicit anti-life sex education are still around, and promoting lurid material in schools. We need the help of SPUC's supporters and sympathetic parents and teachers, to resist the anti-life and anti-family agenda. Please read our new campaign bulletin for further details and action points. Please order copies of the bulletin to give to:

concerned people – especially parents of school-age children and school governors

friends and colleagues

priests and pastors and others at your church, etc.

To order copies of both the bulletin, and the detailed campaign briefings explaining how to act on the key issues, either:

Wednesday, 23 February 2011

UPDATE: I note that on 7 March Dr Ivereigh will be giving this year's University Catholic Lecture, hosted at Newman House by the Catholic Chaplaincy to the London Universities in the Archdiocese of Westminster. Readers of this blog may like to attend to ask Dr Ivereigh some pertinent questions.

"Civil partnership is a fine thing, and should be extended. But the government's desire to create 'gay marriage' is quite wrong".

Lest Dr Ivereigh seek to distance himself from the first sentence of that subtitle, in the body of the blog-post he writes [my emphases in bold]:

"There are many kinds of loving, committed relationships. And it's good that the state supports them. It would have been much better if the legal privileges of the Civil Partnership Act of 2004 were not restricted to same-sex couples, but were available – as in France and Italy – to maiden aunts, marriage-phobic men and women, the disabled and their lifelong carers. It is right that people who commit themselves – lovingly, sometimes even sexually – to each other, and express that in stability and commitment, to have inheritance and hospital-visiting rights, tax breaks and the like. But civil partnerships are not marriage."

In these words Dr Ivereigh has clearly endorsed the legal recognition of sexually-active homosexual and extra-marital heterosexual unions. Such an endorsement dissents clearly from definitive Catholic Church teaching. In 2003, the late Pope John Paul II approved a document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled "Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons", signed by the current Holy Father and published on the feast-day of the Ugandan martyrs, who died rather than submit to sodomy. Here are some relevant extracts from that document, marked "CDF" and with my emphases in bold, followed by my comments:

CDF: "In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (no.5)

As civil partnerships in English law are legally exclusive to same-sex couples and in practice are used only by homosexual couples, they therefore fall squarely under the document's condemnation of homosexual unions. By the use of the word "or", the CDF made clear that the Catholic Church condemns civil partnerships between homosexuals per se and not only "[i]n those situations where homosexual unions...have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage." (And in any case, civil partnerships in English law have already been given many of the "rights belonging to marriage" in English law, so they are doubly condemned.) Dr Ivereigh has not only failed in his "duty" to manifest "clear and emphatic opposition" to homosexual civil partnerships, he has endorsed and praised them.

There is no mention in Dr Ivereigh's blog-post to homosexuality as a disorder nor to the wrongness of homosexual acts. This omission is squarely contrary to the next paragraph of the CDF's document which says:

"It is right that people who commit themselves – lovingly, sometimes even sexually – to each other, and express that in stability and commitment, to have inheritance and hospital-visiting rights, tax breaks and the like."

Yet the CDF explicitly rejects that claim:

"Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens." (no.9)

The final paragraph of the CDF's document says:

"Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean...the approval of deviant behaviour..." (no.11)

Again, by the use of the word "or", the CDF made clear that the Catholic Church condemns civil partnerships between homosexuals per se and not only where such unions are "plac[ed] on the same level as marriage." One of the bases of this condemnation is "the approval of deviant behaviour", about which Dr Ivereigh's blog-post is silent.

Dr Ivereigh's high-profile roles in the Catholic world gives his thinking the false impression of a model of Catholic orthodoxy. This in turn threatens to mislead the faithful, including Catholic eduationalists. That is why it is high time for faithful pro-life/pro-family Catholics in Catholic organisations in which Dr Ivereigh has roles to act to remove him from those roles.

And why is the Catholic Church's teaching on sexual ethics (and Dr Ivereigh's dissent from that teaching) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in no. 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

Tuesday, 22 February 2011

A leading expert on teenage pregnancy trends has called for a u-turn in the 10-year national teenage pregnancy strategy.

Professor David Paton, chair of industrial economics at Nottingham University Business School, was commenting on official estimates of under-18 pregnancies in 2009, which claim to predict a six percent fall.

Speaking to SPUC earlier today, Professor Paton said:

"11 years after the launch of the Labour Government’s teenage pregnancy strategy, it is clear that, despite the millions of pounds that has been spent, there is no chance at all that we will come even close to meeting the target of a 50% fall in the under-18 conception rate. The research evidence is increasingly clear: those areas that have promoted access to contraception have not seen larger decreases in teenage pregnancy than other areas. More disturbingly, there is now evidence that the promotion of easier access to emergency birth control is associated with increases in STIs amongst teenagers. Now is the time to consider a move away from an over-reliance on strategies aimed largely at managing the risks of underage sexual activity."

As I told the media earlier today, the tired old formula of abortion, condoms, pills and school-based sex ed has failed a whole generation of our children. The coalition government must make a break with Labour's failed teenage pregnancy strategy. Parents are the key to solving the problem of high rates of teenage pregnancy. The rights and responsibilities of parents as the first and foremost educators of their children in sexual matters must be upheld again. Children will then have the formation necessary to resist being sexualised.

Dr Bernard Nathanson, the most famous of those abortionists who became pro-life, has passed away, aged 84. Please pray for the repose of his soul, and give thanks to God for his decades of pro-life witness. His writings, speeches, documentaries and other work following his pro-life conversion give testament to a great mind and a faithful Catholic.

Dr Nathanson came several times to the UK at the invitation of SPUC. He spoke at our national conferences at Swansea in September 1984 and at Glasgow in 1986, at which he presented "Eclipse of Reason", the second of his documentaries into the reality of abortion. In Novemeber 1984 he presented "The Silent Scream", the first of his documentaries, to a meeting of parliamentarians at the House of Commons. He is photographed here in Parliament with his wife, Adele. Over the following decades SPUC sold or distributed many copies of his documentaries and books.

"The Silent Scream" includes an ultrasound scan of an abortion of a 12-week unborn child. The documentary was endorsed (see affadavit, right) and defended by Professor Ian Donald, who is universally acknowledged as the father of ultrasound. It was through the use of ultrasound in abortions, which Dr Nathanson had pioneered, that the full humanity of all unborn children was revealed to Dr Nathanson's conscience.

During a decade of transition from being pro-abortion to being pro-life Dr Nathanson recalled that he:

"had performed many thousands of abortions on innocent children [and experienced] existential torment...unremitting black despair...[considered suicide and abused] alcohol, tranquilizers ... I despised myself ... I had become as Hannah Arendt described [Adolf] Eichmann [an architect of the Holocaust]: a collection of functions rather than an accountable human being."

"It is truly telling that both the pioneer of mass abortion (Bernard Nathanson) and the woman who case made mass abortion possible in the US (Norma McCorvey) - who herself went on to work in a clinic – suffered negative effects on their moral character because of their abortion work. They had a choice to follow those negative effects further into a downward spiral or transform into moral regeneration, and they chose the latter."

So I thank our Lady of Guadalupe, protectress of the unborn, for the pro-life conversion and pro-life witness of the late Dr Bernard Nathanson. Requiescat in pace

Monday, 21 February 2011

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Holy See's permanent representative at the United Nations' offices in Geneva, gave an address last Thursday in Rome about the anti-human ideology being promoted at the UN. Zenit reports:

"'Geneva is a place where culture is generated daily', said Archbishop Tomasi, recalling that 30,000 employees of international entities reside there, holding more than 9,000 conferences every year ... According to Archbishop Tomasi, words from Judeo-Christian tradition are disappearing: words such as truth, morality, conscience, reason, father, mother, child, commandment, sin, hierarchy, nature, marriage, etc. ... [S]oft laws are transformed into juridical norms. Then there is a new convention and it becomes law and it is applied even in a small village."

This is why SPUC's work at the UN is vital. Patrick Buckley and Peter Smith both represent SPUC, and the wider international pro-life movement, at the UN and the other international institutions with offices in Geneva, New York and elsewhere. Pat and Peter work closely with Archbishop Tomasi and many other important delegates to resist anti-human agendas. Pat and Peter spend long periods of time away from their families in order to defend every family on earth. Such work is also costly, particularly the cost of travel. You can help Pat and Peter by donating, joining and/or leaving a legacy to SPUC.

Saturday, 19 February 2011

Michael Wendell Thomas, a veteran SPUC activist from Wales, provides an insightful perspective in a letter to The Telegraph about the Mental Capacity Act. The Telegraph neglected to publish it, but the author has kindly given me permission to publish it here:

"Dear Sir,

Tim Montgomerie (ST 6th Feb) says that Andrew Lansley’s reform of the NHS is based on the principle of 'no decision about me without me'. I think there are significant drawbacks to making this a predominant principle of medicine. Doctors are trained and experienced professionals, who should always operate to high ethical standards. (It‘s unfortunate that most of them no longer swear an equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath.) The passing of the Mental Capacity Act has introduced the primacy of the wishes of the patient as the highest consideration for treatment, irrespective of the ethical principles of those who have to carry them out. The 'best interests of the patient' which used to be the predominant principle of all medicine and based on the interpretation of the professional doctor, are now simply and simplistically defined as the wishes of patient, carried out if necessary through the instructions of a third party on his behalf. Such an arrangement can override the ethics of those on whom we rely to be ethical professionals; we don’t want them to be forced to carry out euthanasia because the patient is suicidal, for example, or made his decision on refusal of treatment when medicine was less able to cope with his condition. Medical professionals are not simply private operatives to do as they are told.

From professionals we expect a high degree of training, experience and judgement; is it sensible to encourage patients to override that judgement? I was asked by a doctor what I wanted, from a choice of two options; I naturally chose home treatment as the more convenient one for me. The result was that four days later I was taken to hospital as an emergency. The next time I was asked to choose I said 'you’re the doctor; you tell me what I should do.' I wish I’d done that in the first case. It took me four days on a drip and two weeks in bed to recover from that mischoice of mine.

Michael Wendell Thomas"

Tragically, the British government, parliament, courts and medical establishment have all undermined protection for the sick, elderly and disabled through:

These changes, combined with the influence of pro-euthanasia advocates in academia and the media, has contributed to a mentality which acquiesces in neglecting certain categories of people to death.

In the light of this serious threat to our lives, visitors to this blog should consider joining Patients First Network (PFN). PFN helps you to let doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers know how you expect to be treated in hospital if you are mentally incapacitated. PFN fights against euthanasia.

If you join the Network, we give you a card and a medallion which alert medical staff, along with your family and carers, that you wish to receive appropriate medical treatment and care. Nothing should be done deliberately to end your life, nor should your health care team withdraw treatment with the deliberate intention of causing your death. You can also read and use PFN's Statement of Medical Care Principles.

"[W]e can and will only vote for parties and individual candidates who publicly pledge commitment to defend human life at all stages and we urge all concerned voters to do likewise."

To that end, they have called upon all political parties, party leaders and election candidates to sign the following pledge:

"to defend human life at all stages, from conception until natural death and that if elected - :

They will not dismantle Ireland’s Constitution and will maintain the people’s sovereign and democratic right, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy according to the requirements of the common good.

They will respect and uphold the Constitutional right of the Irish people to decide on Ireland’s unique pro-life status.

They will not legislate for abortion and will absolutely oppose any attempt by unelected judges from the European Court of Human Rights, (ECHR) to usurp the Constitutional right of the Irish people to decide on abortion."

Ireland United for Life

"urges all voters to vote only for candidates and parties who support this pledge"

Liam Gibson, representing SPUC Northern Ireland development officer, and Patrick Buckley, representing European Life Network, participated in the press conference and endorsed the message from Ireland United for Life. Pictured are (left to right):

Thursday, 17 February 2011

Genethique, the online information website of the Jerome Lejeune Foundation, has reported on a range of distinct yet related initiatives to defend embryonic children, especially disabled ones, from lethal discrimination via a revision of France's bioethics laws, currently being debated in the National Assembly:

35 deputies of the assembly launched an appeal, saying that the first duty of a bioethics law is to:

"protect the fundamental rights of people, above all the most vulnerable ... [H]uman procreation is not an industrial process that should aim for 'zero defect’ ... 96% of mothers whose test comes out as positive are led to abort today. This is eugenics ... The embryo cannot be a laboratory material serving economic and financial interests ... [Human procreation cannot be regarded as an] industrial process whose effectiveness is in the hands of a ‘qualified engineer’"

A group of organisations representing the disabled published an appeal against:

"the eugenic abuse of which people suffering from Down’s syndrome are victims ... The exclusion that victimises the people with Down’s syndrome is clearly expressed in the immense difficulties they have in gaining access to school and the labour market. But, long before then, it is manifested firstly in the refusal to welcome them, which starts before their birth".

The same group of organisations have placed full-page advertisements in Le Figaro, a leading French mainstream newspaper, and elsewhere, denouncing the arguments for prenatal screening as:

"arguments that kill ... [T]his massive screening amounts today to selecting the members of a group on the basis of their genome in order to eliminate them."

I congratulate the French deputies and organisations involved in this vigorous and clear-speaking pro-life campaign. Conducting such solid defences of the right to life is our duty towards most vulnerable human beings among us.

Wednesday, 16 February 2011

Monday's high court judgment, in which SPUC played a significant part, was not only important for the defence of women and unborn children but also for the defence of doctors and nurses who object in conscience to participation in abortion. I reproduce below a key extract from the judgment on conscientious objection (with some terms explained in square brackets).

BPAS wants to be allowed to give abortion drugs to women to take away and use elsewhere - so they don't have to take them in a clinic. But the law says that abortion "treatment" must be given at a hospital or clinic, so BPAS argued that administering abortion drugs was not part of the abortion treatment - only prescribing the drugs was 'treatment'. That is a radical argument, and SPUC pointed out to the court that if BPAS was right, and the law should be read in that way, then doctors, nurses and midwives who are sometimes asked to administer abortion drugs, especially in later abortions, would lose the right to opt out - because their conscientious objection (protected in the Abortion Act) is a right not to engage in "treatment" authorised in the Act. If administering drugs (whether oral drugs, pessaries, drips, etc) is not 'treatment' then medical staff have no right to object.

In the judgment, Mr Justice Supperstone, rejected the argument put forward by Ms Lieven the barrister for BPAS (the "Claimant") in these terms:

"Ms Lieven does not accept that the Claimant's interpretation of section 1 [treatment] of the Act is inconsistent with section 4 [conscientious objection] of the Act. Ms Gemma White, for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, intervening, submits that it is, as there will continue to be many situations in which medical professionals, in particular nurses and midwives, are asked to administer abortifacient drugs; if this claim is successful they will not be entitled to the protection of section 4 ... [BPAS' argument] is no answer, in my view, to Ms White's submission that Parliament clearly did not intend that an action which directly causes the termination of pregnancy should be outside the scope of section 4."

SPUC also provided the court with a crucial quotation from Hansard, as cited by the judge:

"It is to be noted that even in 1967 when terminations were normally by a surgical method, during a debate in Parliament on a clause which became section 4 of the Act, Mr Braine MP, the mover of the Amendment said "It is designed to take account of the fact that the termination of a pregnancy is not always and certainly may not in the future, be a surgical operation" (Hansard, 13 July 1967 at 1314). He added, "I am told that probably in the next decade, a safe chemical method of inducing therapeutic abortion may be developed and may be accepted by the medical profession." (at 1315)"

SPUC's research and legal advocacy work is absolutely vital in holding the line against attacks by the anti-life lobby. That is why we need you to donate, join, and/or leave a legacy to cover the considerable costs of that work. By supporting our work you are supporting the unborn, the disabled, the sick and the elderly and medical staff.

"As a support group working in the area of abortion recovery and post-abortion trauma education for 20 years, we are encouraged by the high court judgment not to alter the provision of the Abortion Act 1967 to allow early medical abortion to occur in women’s homes.

Abortion is not good medicine for women, and does damage the emotional and psychological lives of those in crisis that make this decision. Every woman is impacted by the pregnancy loss, but this procedure adds another mentally-traumatic dimension to the abortion process.

Women in crisis pregnancy are vulnerable and will react from fear and panic, wanting to be un-pregnant. To be offered a bedroom abortion is an emotional get-out clause many in ignorance will choose. It is really an abuse too far and will add to the trauma of guilt and grief they may experience at some future stage in life.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) say it is concerned for the woman whose symptoms may begin on the journey back from the clinic. There is no substance to this concern or reliable studies to back up this statement. I am appalled that BPAS is not concerned for the woman who is in her home, in pain, bleeding and struggling with the choice she has made. Where is the concern then for not only women’s physical safety but their psychological health and well-being?"

Monday, 14 February 2011

“The faster they come, the less they are publicised and the shorter the deadlines – meaning that it is less and less possible to make an intelligent response within the specified time frame. Is this some kind of plot to wave through controversial policy quietly whilst appearing take notice of stakeholders’ opinions? That is certainly the impression created.”

This is how Dr. Peter Saunders (pictured) of the Christian Medical Fellowship has described the latest consultation of the RCOG (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists) which is revising its controversial document ‘The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion’, first published in 2000, revised in 2004, and now undergoing its current revision.

The consultation is open to every person and organisation with an interest in this topic. The closing date for submissions is 18 February. Details here. There is more information about the consultation document(s) on the RCOG website.

Dr. Saunders notes the ubiquitous presence of BPAS and Marie Stopes International, in collaboration with their pro-abortion colleagues within the RCOG and its faculty of sexual and reproductive health.

Dr. Saunders also notes the further inadequacy of the review panel by its failure to include any psychiatrist in its composition. Perhaps the recent change of position by The Royal College of Psychiatrists over the issue of abortion and mental illness, which it now recognises, has something to do with it?

Among the draft document’s recommendations, or rather ideological tenets, are the following:

"Women should be informed that induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer; Women should be informed that there are no proven associations between induced abortion and subsequent ectopic pregnancy, placenta praevia or infertility; Women should be informed that induced abortion is associated with a small increase in risk of subsequent preterm birth, which increases with the number of abortions; Women should be informed that most women who have abortions do not experience adverse psychological sequelae."

These claims are an egregious attempt to dismiss or ignore the significant body of evidence that contradicts each of the points made by the RCOG. Dr. Saunders provides one pertinent example offered by the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists on the link between abortion and pre-term birth.

The last word on the RCOG goes to Dr. Saunders:

“Asking this group to comment objectively and honestly about the physical and psychological consequences of abortion for women is like asking Philip Morris or BAT to review the health consequences of smoking or Macdonald’s to outline the adverse effects of fast food consumption. There are simply too many financial and ideological vested interests at stake that threaten a fair assessment.”

Today's high court judgment on bedroom abortions is a victory for women. SPUC intervened in the case, and evidence we submitted played a prominent part in Mr Justice Supperstone's judgment.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), one of the UK's largest abortion providers and promoters, had asked the court to reinterpret the Abortion Act 1967 to allow women to take misoprostol, used in conjunction with the chemical abortion drug RU486, at home rather than in hospital.

Commenting on the verdict, SPUC's Katherine Hampton, told the media this morning:

“Today's judgment is a victory for women. If BPAS had won this case, it would send out the false signal that there is a ‘safe’ route to abortion. That could lead to more abortions, and more dead babies and more suffering for women. It would also have led to further restrictions on conscientious objection to abortion by doctors and nurses.

"The significance of this case is important internationally too, as chemical abortions are widely promoted in poorer countries, and any move to widen the practice here may adversely affect unborn babies and women around the world.

"We will continue to fight any similar moves to trivialise abortion."

Here is a video of Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, interviewed by Sky outside the court:

Also, Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications, can be heard here speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live (about 1hr21mins into the programme) and to Premier Christian Radio here.

Some facts about RU486 and misoprostol:
- The woman is directly involved in the abortion by having to take the pills herself.
- The nature of the drug means that the woman must live with her abortion over the course of a number of days. The president of Roussel Uclaf, the original makers of RU486, said “The woman must live with this for a full week. This is an appalling psychological ordeal”. (Edouard Sakiz, chairman, Roussel-Uclaf, August 1990)
- The woman may abort at home and suffer the distress of seeing the expelled embryo/foetus, which she is required to keep and return to the hospital or clinic to help determine if the abortion is complete. If BPAS's challenge had been successful, women taking misoprostol would go into labour at home. This can be very distressing as labour, usually associated with child-birth, now becomes associated with the delivery of a dead child.
- Use of RU486/misoprostol may cause any of the following: haemmorrhage requiring blood transfusion, severe pain requiring strong pain killers, incomplete abortion, rupture of the uterus, vaginal bleeding, abdominal cramping, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, headache, muscle weakness, dizziness, flushing, chills, backache, difficulty in breathing, chest pain, palpitations, rise in temperature and fall in blood pressure. The number and diverse nature of the side effects of RU486/misoprostol point to the fact that these are powerful chemicals.

Saturday, 12 February 2011

The Catholic Church's witness to the sanctity of all human life is the most powerful force in the world for protecting vulnerable human beings. In this connection, I draw great encouragement from the courageous leadership currently being displayed by the Church's leaders in South Korea.

In an effort to promote a culture of life, the South Korean Catholic Bishops’ Conference (CBCK) has announced it will provide shelters and financial support for single mothers and free delivery for unmarried pregnant women in Catholic-run hospitals.

The initiative, called “New Life Project,” was inaugurated by the CBCK on February 7 at a Mass presided over by Bishop Gabriel Chang Bong-hun of Cheongju (pictured), president of the CBCK Committee for Bioethics.

“The Catholic Church teaches that human life begins from fertilization,” said Bishop Gabriel Chang Bong-hun of Cheongju. “Abortions and destruction of human embryos are grave crimes that destroy life.”

As Bishop Gabriel Chang Bong-hun suggests, this sort of action taken by bishops to defend life is the response demanded by the Catholic Church's teaching:

Where life is involved, the service of charity must be profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is an indivisible good. We need then to "show care" for all life and for the life of everyone. Indeed, at an even deeper level, we need to go to the very roots of life and love.

It is this deep love for every man and woman which has given rise down the centuries to an outstanding history of charity, a history which has brought into being in the Church and society many forms of service to life which evoke admiration from all unbiased observers. Every Christian community, with a renewed sense of responsibility, must continue to write this history through various kinds of pastoral and social activity. To this end, appropriate and effective programmes of support for new life must be implemented, with special closeness to mothers who, even without the help of the father, are not afraid to bring their child into the world and to raise it. Similar care must be shown for the life of the marginalized or suffering, especially in its final phases. (Evangelium Vitae, 87)

I look forward to the day when the Catholic bishops of England and Wales will respond to the ongoing crisis in this country, which results in the unspeakable tragedy of hundreds of human lives lost each day. Unfortunately, for this day to arrive we will need to witness a huge transformation in the current policy of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales.

Our bishops are failing to speak out on life issues and to reach out to some of the most vulnerable people in our society - women under pressure to have an abortion - in the way that the bishops of South Korea are doing. Not only this, but our bishops are actually co-operating with anti-life forces. They do this by making abortion accessible to Catholics and non-Catholics through CEDAR, an initiative of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, and Connexions, a government agency which is committed to giving schoolchildren, under the age of 16, access to abortion and abortifacients without parental knowledge or permission. Connexions is a body welcomed into Catholic schools by the Catholic Education Service, working on behalf of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.

I am praying for the day when England and Wales will have Catholic bishops that seek to defend their flock and our nation in the way the bishops of South Korea are doing.

Friday, 11 February 2011

The High Court will hand down its judgment in the “bedroom abortions” case on Monday 14 February at 10am.

Mr Justice Supperstone will hand down his judgment, in the case of BPAS vs Secretary of State for Health, in court 12, St Dunstan's House, 133-137 Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1HD, at 10am. We understand that the text of the judgment will be available to the public shortly afterwards. BPAS sought to be allowed to issue drugs for inducing an abortion for women to use at home. SPUC was an intervenor in the case, and will be available for comment on Monday. Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, will be at the court, and his mobile number is (0)7939 178719. SPUC's communications department is available on (0)7939 177683 and (020) 7820 3129.

Thursday, 10 February 2011

Antonia Tully of SPUC's Safe at School campaign gave a presentation on the widely-used sex education programme “Living and Growing”, published by Channel Four.

Mrs Tully showed horrified parents extracts from the DVDs in the programme, including an animation of sexual intercourse in two positions; a graphic child birth scene; and a section telling boys of 10-11 years old that masturbation is something everyone does and that it “does you no harm”.

Parents also saw clips which promote homosexuality, with footage of same-sex couples kissing.

Antonia explained to parents how this resource for primary schools effectively primes children for teenage sex.

Trevor Bean, Group Manager for the Education Improvement Service at Nottingham City Council, was present throughout the meeting and said that he would not want his children to see such material.
The Worksop Guardian, a local newspaper, was there and published a report.

Janet Thomas of No Less Human, a group within SPUC which represents disabled people, has kindly sent me her review of a recent article from the mother of a disabled child:

"Who can judge the quality of a life?

This is the title of an article published in the current issue of The New Oxford Review, a publication written from a religious perspective so it is not surprising that the author, Angela Manuel Camel, an American mother from Louisiana, answers this question from a faith deeply rooted in the love and goodness of God who knows what is best for those He has created.

If this were all that we were able to find in this article, it would still be worth reading for many who share Angela’s particular belief as well as all those who have some kind of religious faith. Angela reminds us that a life free of pain is not our automatic right, that for those of faith there is value in suffering and that it is not our right to judge the worth of any life, even those of our own disabled babies and that the attitude of those parents with faith should be one of gratitude for being given the chance to love and care for a vulnerable child.

However, even those who have no faith can find much to ponder in this thoughtful article; Angela reminds us that “the quality of life argument”, that would judge a disabled life as worthless because of the suffering, is flawed in that the judgement is not made from the point of view of the disabled child for whom this is the only life she has known and moreover, ignores the fact that the pain she suffers is always accompanied by the ‘encompassing love’ of her family. Angela reminds us all of how important love is in countering suffering. We have a duty to relieve suffering, it is true, but it is in our response to those whose suffering is severe that we show the real depth of our love and compassion. True compassion lies in remembering that suffering does not alter the infinite human value of each life; to advance suffering as a reason for killing disabled unborn babies is a sham love which sees a disabled or suffering life which may be very short as of less worth than a ‘perfect’ one; to judge the lives of suffering people as of little value is to turn our backs on the greatest learning adventure life has to offer. It is only by opening our hearts to suffering, our own and that of others especially our children, that we can enlarge them to accept and appreciate the infinite value, dignity and worth of every human being.

Angela ends with these moving words, “He (God) blessed me and my husband with a child who is as close to perfect as a child could be. Many would remark in confusion, “Perfect? She cannot walk, or talk, or eat on her own, etc.” My response is that she can love and has received love beyond measure. How much more perfect could she be?”"

"[H]igh-fertility countries may not reduce their fertility fast enough and countries with intermediate fertility levels may see them stagnate above replacement level. Even countries with intermediate fertility need to reduce it to replacement level or below if they wish to avert continuous population increases to unsustainable levels."

Yet the idea that even high-range estimates of world population growth are "unsustainable" is simply false - as the UNPD itself said in 2001:

"Even though population increased more rapidly during the twentieth century than ever before, economic output grew even faster, owing to the accelerating tempo of technological progress…[W]hile world population increased close to 4 times, world real gross domestic product increased 20 to 40 times, allowing the world to not only sustain a four-fold population increase, but also to do so at vastly higher standards of living ... Over the period 1961-1998, world per capita food available for direct human consumption increased by 24 per cent, and there is enough being produced for everyone on the planet to be adequately nourished ... During recent decades new reserves have been discovered, producing the seeming paradox that even though consumption of many minerals has risen, so has the estimated amount of the resource as yet untapped." (World Population Monitoring, UNPD, 2001)

So we can see that the latest UNPD report represents a victory of ideology over facts. Pro-lifers must therefore work hard to rebut the UN's anti-population ideology. We must use the resources of:

Tuesday, 8 February 2011

Chris Bryant’s private member’s bill to make sex and relationships education (SRE) compulsory in all schools is due for second reading this Friday, 11 February.

There is growing concern among parents about the practice of SRE – especially in primary schools - and the evidence of the damage is mounting. Research has shown the ineffectiveness of the typical UK approach to SRE, even when delivered to a very high standard by specially-trained presenters.

Although the bill is unlikely to make further progress due to procedural reasons, if you know that your member of parliament (MP) is sympathetic to pro-life concerns, please contact him or her and ask them to be available to speak and vote against the bill. You can contact your MP via the SPUC website at http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps

"A great prayer for life is urgently needed … prayer and fasting are the first and most effective weapons against the forces of evil." Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae.

The Helpers of God's Precious Infants is an international pro-life group founded by Monsignor Philip Reilly under the direction of Bishop Thomas Daily of New York. Its main work is prayer vigils at abortion facilities. To date, 5 cardinals and over 100 bishops worldwide participate, including Bishop Thomas McMahon of Brentwood, Bishop John Hine of Southwark and Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds. The spirituality is one of solidarity with Jesus in the person of the forgotten poor: “Whatever you do for the least of these my brethren, you do for me.” (Matt.25:40).

The Helpers will be holding a vigil, with full police co-operation, on Wednesday 16 February at the Marie Stopes abortion facility, Brewer Street, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1RV. The proceedings will start at 10.00am with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at St Francis’ Church, Week Street, ME14 1RH celebrated by Father Neil Vincent.
10.30am: prayerful and peaceful procession to Marie Stopes abortion facility, processing with image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Holy Rosary.
12.00pm: return procession for blessing and refreshments in the parish centre.

Directions: Connex South East runs a direct line from Victoria to Maidstone East Station, which is directly opposite St. Francis Church.
By road: The M20 – come off at Junction 6. Follow signs to town centre then to Maidstone East station. There is a car park at the station and also two car parks in Brewer Street and one in Wheeler Street, both of which are accessed by Lower Boxley Well road. The shaded areas on the map are pedestrian areas only.

The Helpers ask those unable to join the procession to join them spiritually.

Monday, 7 February 2011

Last week Vincent Nichols (pictured, right) archbishop of Westminster, issued a statement in response to parent-led protests about the way Westminister archdiocese is treating the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School. Firstly, I should say that it is outside SPUC's remit to comment on the key issue in the dispute between the parents and the archdiocese, namely, the school's admissions policy. However, I note with great interest the Vaughan Parents' Action Group (VPAG)'s response to Archbishop Nichols:

"The VPAG notes that, in his 85 word statement, the Archbishop does not even mention the word “parents” ... The Church teaches that parents are “the primary and principal educators” (Gravissimum Educationis, 3) of their children, not the Diocese, and not the Bishop. It is their role to support parents in that task..."

I note that Paul Barber, Westminster archdiocese's director of education who has just been appointed by Archbishop Nichols to the Vaughan governors' board, in March sent a shameful message to clergy whitewashing the Labour government's attempt to force all state-funded schools to teach anti-life/anti-family sex education.

"Catholic social teaching reminds us that the key to social development lies in placing the good of the human person centre-stage. In that perspective marriage, family life, and the dignity of work are vitally important. The future of society crucially depends on the nature and quality of family life."

Archbishop Nichols also said:

"In the social doctrine of the Church, particularly as expressed in [Pope Benedict's encyclical] Caritas in Veritate, we have a source of practical guidance and profound wisdom relevant to all who desire to recover a stronger sense of a more humane civil society."

Yet, just there as there was no mention of parents in his statement on the Vaughan school, neither was there any mention of unborn children in his speech to Caritas Social Action - even though Pope Benedict spoke clearly of the need to protect unborn children in both Caritas in Veritate (paragraphs 15 and 28) and directly to the bishops themselves during the papal visit.

Time and again Archbishop Nichols (and the bishops' conference of which he is president) not only fails to protect unborn children and Catholic families, but is actively complicit in undermining them. The parents' group at the Vaughan school is but the newest of a growing number of elements in the Catholic Church in England and Wales who rightly demand better of an archbishop of Westminster.

Saturday, 5 February 2011

Last month Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, made a state visit to the United States. LifeSiteNews.com reports that during the visit, a congresswoman urged China to end its forced abortion policy. Mr Hu responded by saying that such a policy does not exist. Steven Mosher, president of the pro-life organisation the Population Research Institute (PRI), described Mr Hu's denial as a "bald-faced lie". Also, in a recent PRI briefing, Mr Mosher said that abortion centres which he visited in China last year were very similar to the nightmarish abortion centres run by Dr Kermit Gosnell, the arrest Pennsylvania abortionist.

In 1979 Chinese Vice-Premier Chen Muhua described the one-child policy as: "A policy of encouragement and punishment for maternity, with encouragement as the main feature, will be implemented. Parents having one child will be encouraged, and strict measures will be enforced to control the birth of two or more babies."

The 1992 Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Women's Rights and the Interests of Women says: "When a wife terminates gestation as required by the family planning programme, her husband may not apply for a divorce within six months after the operation" (article 42)

the 2002 Law on Population and Birth Planning says: "Citizens . . . are also duty-bound undergo family planning as provided for in the law." (article 17) in order to "uphold a single-child policy for married couples" (article 18)

the 2009 forced abortion drive in Guangzhou. Reuters quotes Zhang Minan, a law professor at Guangzhou's Sun Yat-sen University and an expert on the issue, saying:"'They (the authorities) do have the right (to force abortions) ... "

Readers should write to the Chinese embassy to call for an end to China's population control programme, citing the evidence of forced abortion as a regular part of the programme:
Ambassador Liu Xiaoming
Embassy of the People's Republic of China
49 Portland Place , London W1B 1JLpolitical@chinese-embassy.org.uk

John Smeaton

About Me

I became involved in SPUC after graduating, when I established a branch in south London in 1974. I have worked full-time for SPUC for 39 years. I became chief executive of SPUC in the UK in 1996, having been general secretary since 1978. I was elected vice-president of International Right to Life Federation in 2005. At UN conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul and Rome, I helped coordinate more than 150 pro-life/pro-family groups resulting in pro-life victories in Cairo, Istanbul and Rome. I was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where I graduated in English Language and Literature. I qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. I am married to Josephine. We have a grown-up family and we live in north London.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help to me in researching, writing and producing this blog.

Sign up for email alerts

Twitter @spucprolife

Images

I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.